To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Remove the two following phrases from Section 2, and ithe policy is improved:
1) “…to the extent permitted by federal and/or Texas law”
2) “…or any other characteristic protected by law.”
Leave the two phrases in, and the policy is impotent.
I am much more concerned about the language in the first line of the policy that says “to the extent they are consistent with Federal or State law.” Granted, it doesn’t say “ONLY to the extent consistent,” but neither does it say “AT LEAST to the extent consistent. It’s ambiguous and doesn’t send a clear message.
The others don’t bother me as much. I’d like to see the first one go that says “to the extent permitted by federal and/or texas law, but I think the second one is fine in my view, and probably ought to be there.
In section three, I don’t see why they need the part about not waiving sovereign immunity. Courts have ruled that these types of policies don’t waive sovereign immunity absent an expression of an explicit intent to waive it. The court will look to the record of the policy formulation or amendment to detemrine that intent. The only reason they would need it is if the law did a 180 degree reversal to say that they do waive it absent an express provision to the contrary. But this clause also sends an ambiguous message to management, and I dodn’t think it is in Dart’s best interest to include it. I think they ought to remove it and comment that the removal is not intended to waive sovereign immunity, where it exists, but to send a clear and consistent message to DART management that discrimination will not be tolerated.